Liquefied natural gas is the other shoe that refuses to drop.

A search of The World’s digital archives shows that the Jordan Cove gas terminal proposal made its first thud in August 2004. That was when would-be developers announced they were negotiating for land on the North Spit.

Since then, debate about the plant has polarized the Coos Bay-North Bend area. The fight between job boosters and environment protectors has been rancorous and deafening, drowning out more fruitful discussions.

There was a time in U.S. history when our government knew how to make decisions and act on them briskly. In June 1943, President Roosevelt decided that Los Alamos, N.M., would be the headquarters for developing nuclear fission. In August 1945, the U.S. tested its first atomic bomb.

Twenty-six months.

Compare that timeline with the Jordan Cove process. Jan. 31, 2007, was to have been the deadline for the company to file its application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The deadline was extended repeatedly while the government requested additional information.

FERC, quite appropriately, allowed public comment on the application, completing that step in October 2007. Now comes word that FERC hopes to issue an environmental impact statement in February 2009, and a ruling that May. Assuming FERC meets that schedule, the time from the public announcement to a  decision — not construction, just a decision — will be 54 months.

Of course, that’s just the administrative decision. You can count on court challenges to whatever FERC decides. Also court challenges to the pending decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals, which also was postponed last week.

The other shoe will be a long time coming.

We’re not suggesting the government should rush to judgment on the LNG terminal. It’s a complicated issue, and the South Coast deserves a judicious decision. But we also deserve a timely one.

As of today, the editors of The World will confess that we’re not sure whether we’re for the terminal or against it. On the other hand, we’re not getting paid to make this decision. FERC officials are, and we wish they’d get on with it.

 While the LNG proposal percolates, local controversy about it yields a scalding steam. Supporters and opponents dismiss each other as ignorant and selfish. Fury over this issue excludes the possibility of constructive dialogue.

With logging and fishing no longer propelling prosperity, the South Coast needs family-wage jobs to build a healthy, sustainable economy. An LNG terminal might provide some of those, but far from enough. With or without LNG, the area needs to engage in positive, collaborative discussion about its future. That’s hard to do when people are screaming themselves hoarse.

 A North Spit LNG terminal someday might — or might not — make an important contribution to U.S. energy needs. Regrettably, bickering over it is draining valuable mental energy from this community’s pursuit of a better future.